Is it true? No? Then it's a defamitory assertion made in a public arena. Might make people stop and imagine what damage could be done to their own lives with unfounded allegations for all the world to see. Look up the Daily Mail's track record on being sued for similar.

Is it true? No? Then it's a defamitory assertion made in a public arena. Might make people stop and imagine what damage could be done to their own lives with unfounded allegations for all the world to see. Look up the Daily Mail's track record on being sued for similar.

Yeah, but the tort laws and tradition are different in the US. UK defamation cases much easier (why people try to get their cases heard there.) Interestingly we even upped the ante with the SPEECH Act, signed into law 2010 saying that cases in other countries, looking at the UK in particular, in which damages have been awarded might be unenforceable here. It will be interesting to see how various agreements in the works, TPP and the like, deal with this.

Is it true? No? Then it's a defamitory assertion made in a public arena. Might make people stop and imagine what damage could be done to their own lives with unfounded allegations for all the world to see. Look up the Daily Mail's track record on being sued for similar.

At least here in the USA just initiating a lawsuit against a defendant is enough to cripple that person financially for years (or life), let alone reaching a verdict in favor of the plaintiff...

At least here in the USA just initiating a lawsuit against a defendant is enough to cripple that person financially for years (or life), let alone reaching a verdict in favor of the plaintiff...

Really? And to flip that on it's head, there are dozens of little people whose lives have been ruined by newspapers' sensational stories that were false. But the little people can't afford the expensive lawyers (that newspapers can). Would you be fine having your name dragged through the mud if it was a lie that did it?

No reasonable person would read a tweet from an anonymous user and believe it to be true or believe the user was an expert on cocaine addiction or had any relationship with James enough to make that assessment, nor did James suffer in any way financially or emotionally.

Is it true? No? Then it's a defamitory assertion made in a public arena. Might make people stop and imagine what damage could be done to their own lives with unfounded allegations for all the world to see. Look up the Daily Mail's track record on being sued for similar.

Nope..one can be held to account the other may well find they will be. But as a principle, what's the difference? Or does making defamitory comments only apply if it isn't on twatter? Might be amusing to see if the person concerned wets himself before pleading he was only joking. Eh?

Nope..one can be held to account the other may well find they will be. But as a principle, what's the difference? Or does making defamitory comments only apply if it isn't on twatter? Might be amusing to see if the person concerned wets himself before pleading he was only joking. Eh?

I think what is interesting is now that media is worldwide and often internet-based but different countries have different legal traditions, precedents, and laws. Also how some of these international agreements, like TPP, will effective things like defamation torts etc. There already is the phenomena of 'picking' jurisdictions or countries to sue in ("libel tourism" and "forum shopping.")

At least here in the USA just initiating a lawsuit against a defendant is enough to cripple that person financially for years (or life), let alone reaching a verdict in favor of the plaintiff...

You can't squeeze blood from a turnip!

Meanwhile, during the suit, both sides have Litigation Priviledge, which grants the right to discuss all allegedly defamatory business to "interested parties", so by suing, you might risk the defamation growing.